in a similar situation. Now, in very large congregations, some may be supposed to be spiritual worshippers, and others to be destitute of saving and sanctifying faith, though attending on the same means of grace."

This sentiment perfectly agrees with my humble opinion, that the Jewish nation or congregation was not a spiritual church or kingdom, like the church or kingdom of Christ, but a mixture of good and bad, as our congregations are.

4. Another objection has been often stated, and as often shown to be absurd. It is very seriously and gravely said, that "to deny that the visible church commenced in Abraham's family, is as much as to say that God had been for more than two thousand years without a visible church." But does not the very assertion of our brethren deny the existence of a church before Abraham? If, then, it was consistent with God to be without a church from Adam to Abraham, why may it not be equally consistent with him to be without a church till after the resurrection of Christ? Dr. Mason's description of the state of the world before the call of Abraham is equally true after his call. "People of God," says the doctor, "there were; promises of God there were; gracious revelations and acceptable worship of God there were; but a church of God, organized upon the principle of visible unity, there was not." Essays on the Church, p. 37.

How could the doctor "deny" that God had any church on the earth for nearly "two thousand years," i. è., from the fall to Abraham?

5. We proceed to the next objection, which is stated thus: "Unbelieving and unconverted persons have been received as members of the church; why may we not also receive unbelieving and unconverted children?"

If our brethren mean that unbelieving and unconverted persons have crept into the church without being known, we should acknowledge the fact. But they tell us, 1st, that "the Jewish church, though constituted by the omniscient God, consisted of hypocrites, as well as of true worshippers; that it embraced multitudes who never were made partakers of saving grace:" 2d, "that our Lord told us in several parables that hypocrites and wicked persons must be left until the judgment day :" and 3d, we are informed "that our Lord Jesus Christ, who fell into no mistakes, actually did admit an unconverted man, a hypocrite, a traitor, a devil, into the number, not only of his disciples, but even of his apostles; thereby instructing his church that the secret state of the soul before God is not to be her rule of Judgment." See Buck's Theolog. Dict., under the word church. Brown's Compend. Nat. and Rev. Religion, B. 7. Dr. Mason's Essays on the Church, pp. 27, 67.

We answer: With respect to the first, it is not disputed that, under the Mosaic dispensation, the righteous and the wicked were equally members, and that by descent; but they were only of the congregation of Israel, as nominal and real Christians are now mixed in our congregations but they were not members of the visible church, which had then no existence, as we have before proved.

:

With respect to the second, three parables are referred to. The first is that of the tares and the wheat; Matt. 13. Our Lord's design in this parable is, to guard. his disciples against persecuting those who would not believe their preaching; to warn them not to make use of destructive weapons to make men to become their disciples-the way in which false religion has always been propagated. Their duty was to preach the gospel in

the world as we do in our respective congregations, and leave the result of men's believing or not believing with God. This parable has nothing to do with church discipline; for, in the first place, our blessed Lord himself has told us that "the field is the world." It is strange, indeed, that any should dare to contradict the Saviour, and say the "field is the church." Secondly;

If the "field" were the church, an end would then be put to all church discipline; for of what benefit would it be to ascertain whether a member has acted right or wrong, when we are told that the wicked must remain with the good? Thirdly; This parable of our Lord would be in plain contradiction to his directions given in Matt. 18: 15-17; that the church is to treat an impenitent member as a heathen man and a publican. Το this it is objected, that the disciples knew that our Lord's kingdom is spiritual; that they had no idea of interfering with civil society; that, to cut off unbelievers, they knew would destroy the world; and that the reason assigned for letting the tares grow up together with the wheat, is our liability of considering a person to be a tare when he is a wheat. To this we answer, first; It very evident that the disciples had no clear ideas of a spiritual kingdom till after the resurrection of Christ. Luke, 24: 21. Acts 1: 6. Secondly; The caution of our Lord was very necessary, for the disciples manifested a spirit of persecution, saying, "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?" Luke 9: 54. Thirdly; It is true that, in all proceedings of church discipline, we ought to lean on the side of mercy, and never cut off a member till satisfactory evidence have proved him to be unworthy of membership: but in the parable there is no doubt in the matter; the servants declared positively that there

is

"be

were tares among the wheat, and expressed their surprise how they came there. Nor did the Lord say, careful, ye may be mistaken :" on the contrary, he confirmed their declaration that there were tares, and that the wicked one was the author of them; still he directed his disciples not to cut off these wicked men out of the world, lest they should cut off the wheat also. Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it." Isa. 65: 8.

66

66

The next parables referred to are the "net" and the ten virgins." Matt. chaps. 13 and 25. I have no objection to apply these parables to the church; and they teach us that the church visible is not perfect; for there may be hypocrites in it, and we may not know the fact; as the fisherman does not know what kinds of fish are in his net till it is brought to shore, nor were the five foolish virgins known till after the bridegroom had arrived. But as soon as the fisherman finds out the bad fish, he throws them away; and as soon as a hypocrite is found out and proved to be such, he is to be put out of the church by the brethren. And hypocritical professors, if their hypocricy be not discovered in the present life, when Christ shall appear in judgment, will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

We proceed to the third objection, viz.: That " Lord Jesus Christ admitted Judas—a devil,” &c.

our

It is true that our blessed Lord for wise reasons, employed Judas as well as the other disciples and apostles; but what has that to do with the church? The visible church had no existence at that time; Judas could not, therefore, have been a member of it. Farther, if our Lord and Saviour had really received Judas as a member of the church, instead of thereby teaching his church that the real state of the soul before God is not to be her rule of judgment, and that this state is not to

be judged of by men according to the best existing evidence; but that every applicant is to be admitted, irrespective of his character, he would have taught her to admit an unconverted man, a hypocrite, a traitor, a devil, under a full knowledge of his character. I cannot refrain myself from expressing my mind fully on this subject, viz., that whoever asserts that our Lord and Saviour, who could not fall into mistakes, actually admitted Judas as an example for the conduct of the church, "betrays something very different from modesty, by setting up a term of religious fellowship which would convict the master himself of corrupting his own church."

6. Another objection is, that the covenant made with Abraham is still in force; that it has never been abrogated; that it is called an everlasting covenant; and that he is the father of the believing Gentiles as well as of the believing Jews.

But

We have already stated that the covenant made with Abraham must be either the covenant of grace or the covenant of circumcision. That the covenant of grace` is still in force, and that with respect to this covenant Abraham is the father of believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews, none does deny. Neither do I deny that the covenant of circumcision is still in force. with whom? not with the believing or unbelieving Gentiles, but with the natural descendants of Abraham. God is still the God of Abraham and of his natural seed in a peculiar sense to them the land of Canaan still belongs, as much as it did while they were slaves in Egypt or captives in Babylon; and he who has been their deliverer in times past, will deliver them again, and bring them as an unconverted nation to the land of promise; and, till then, they will circumcise their chil

E